-
2. "Freedom" and "Constraint"
- Liberty Fund
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Law_001-050.indd 43 10/27/09 8:46 AM 2 ''FREEDOM'' AND ''CONSTRAINT'' Amore caceful appmach to the pmblem of defining "freedom " than the realistic one that we have here rejected would involve a preliminary inquiry concerning the nature and purpose of such a definition. It is customary to distinguish "stipulative" from "lexicographic" definitions. Both are descriptive of the meaning attached to a word; but the former refers to a meaning that the author of the definition proposes to adopt for the word in question, whereas the latter refers to the meaning that ordinary people give to the word in common usage. Since the Second World War a new trend in linguistic philosophy has emerged. It recognizes the existence of languages whose purpose is not only descriptive or even not descriptive at alllanguages that the school of the so-called Vienna Circle would have condemned as altogether wrong or useless. The adherents of this new movement grant recognition also to nondescriptive (sometimes called "persuasive") languages. The aim of persuasive definitions is not to describe things, but to modify the traditional meaning of words with favorable connotations in order to induce people to adopt certain beliefs or certain forms of behavior . It is obvious that several definitions of "freedom" may be and have been contrived in this way with the object of inducing people, for instance, to obey the orders of some ruler. The formulation of such persuasive definitions would not be a proper task for the scholar. On the other hand, the scholar is entitled to make stipulative definitions of "freedom." By doing so, a student may at the same time escape the charge of using equivocal defini43 Law_001-050.indd 44 10/27/09 8:46 AM 44 FREEDOM AND THE LAW tions for purposes of deception and relieve himself of the necessity of elaborating a lexicographic definition, the difficulties of which are obvious because of the already mentioned multiplicity of meanings actually given to the word "freedom." Stipulative definitions may appear to be, on the surface, a solution to the problem. Stipulating seems to depend entirely on us or at most also on a partner who agrees with us about what we want to define. When the adherents of the linguistic school speak of stipulative definitions, they emphasize the arbitrariness of such formulations. This is evidenced, for instance, by the enthusiasm with which the advocates of stipulative definitions quote an authority who is not properly a philosopher-at least not an official one. This oft-quoted gentleman is Lewis Carroll, the brilliant author of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, who describes the impossible and sophisticated characters met by Alice during her travels. One of these, Humpty Dumpty, made words say what he wanted them to say and also paid them a sort of salary for their service. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." 'The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, " which is to be masterthat 's all."1 When they speak of stipulative definitions, the analytical philosophers have in mind chiefly those of logic or of mathematics, where everybody seems to be free to start when and where he wants provided that he defines precisely the terms he employs in his reasoning. Without entering into the complicated questions relating to the nature of mathematical or logical procedures, we feel obliged nonetheless to sound a note of warning against confusing these procedures with those of people who speak of matters like "freedom." A triangle is certainly a concept, whether or not this concept is also something else-for instance, an object of experience, of intuition, or the like. "Freedom," while pre1 Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), "Through the Looking Glass," in The Lewis Carroll Book, ed. Richard Herrick (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1944), p. 238. [100.25.40.11] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:50 GMT) Law_001-050.indd 45 10/27/09 8:46 AM "FREEDOM" AND "CONSTRAINT" 45 senting itself as a concept, is also what many people believe in as a reason for living, something they say they are ready to fight for, something they say they cannot live without. I do not think that people would fight for triangles. Perhaps a few mathematicians would do so. But many people say that they are prepared to...